Madras High Court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on 10 October, 2012
Author: G.M. Akbar Ali
Bench: G.M. Akbar Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10/10/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI COMMON ORDER IN Crl.O.P.Nos.12770,13338, 13507 and 13629 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13338 of 2012 M.P.No.3 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.NO.13507 of 2012 M.P.No.3 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13629 of 2012 Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 ------------------------ T.UMAVATHY . VS THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB, TEAM XVII, EGMORE, CHENNAI (CR.NO.262/2012) ORDER
The following Criminal Original Petitions and M.Ps have been filed praying for the reliefs mentioned against each as detailed below:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sl.No Crl.O.P.Nos Rank of the petitioner Relief ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 12770 of 2012 A.4 Interim Anticipatory bail granted and periodically extended ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 13338 of 2012 A.9 Interim Anticipatory bail granted and periodically extended ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 13507 of 2012 A.3 Bail granted with condition ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 13629 of 2012 A.5 Bail granted with condition ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 M.P.No.3 of 2012 Cancel in 13629 of 2012 the bail granted on 13.6.2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 M.P.No.3 of 2012 Cancel in 13507 of 2012 the bail granted on 13.6.2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7 M.P.No.1 of 2012 Permission in 12770 of 2012 to intervene ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8 M.P.No.2 of 2012 For Relaxation in 12770 of 2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9 M.P.No.1 of 2012 Permission to intervene in 13338 of 2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. The case of the prosecution is that the property orginally belonged to one Munusamy as per the Sale Deed dated 07.01.1900. The mother of the de-facto complainant Elangali Ammal purchased a specific extent by a registered sale deed dated 11.7.1938. The property is situated in Survey No.283. A portion of the property was acquired for the purpose of forming 100 feet road which was in fact laid subsequently. The acquired portion was identified as Survey No.283/2. The remaining extent has been identified as Survey No.283/13. Elangali Ammal died leaving behind the defacto-complainant as the sole legal heir on 19.06.1995. Taking advantage of the absence of illiterate poor lady, the sale deeds have been created in the names of A.3 and A.4 for the 100 feet road in Survey No.283/2. This was acquired by the Government as mentioned earlier.
3. Thereafter, the accused persons created forged patta for Survey No.283/13 in the name of A.3. Forged patta was also created for the Survey No.283/14 in the name of A.4 when there is no such survey number. Using the fraudulent sale deeds created in the names of A.3 and A.4 the property belonging to the defacto-complainant in Survey No.283/1 was encroached upon and a forged rental agreement was created in favour of A.6 as if it was executed by the deceased Elangali Ammal on 24.03.1993. There is absolutely no connection between the deceased Elangali Ammal and A.6.
4. With the help of the forged unregistered Will created in the name of A.6, once again fraudulent documents have been created with the property situated in Survey No.283/1 belonging to the defacto-complainant by executing sale deeds in the year 2007 in the names of A.7 and A.8. A fraudulent Power of Attorney was also created in the year 2007 in the name of A.5. Thereafter, a fraudulent sale deed has been created once again in favour of the firm belonging to A.5 and A.9. This is the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution.
5. On the contrary, the case of the defacto-complainant is as follows:
6. The entire records have been forged and fabricated incuding the patta. Taking advantage of the absence of poor illiterate lady, the petitioners have grabbed her property. A.7 and A.8, the POAs are none other than the employees of the firm. Similarly, A.6 is none other than the watchman. The unregistered will has been fabricated after coming to know of the fact that Elangali Ammal is dead and the defacto-complainant is having the title. Mere pendency of the civil proceedings are not a bar. A.1 and A.2 have created a sale deed original for Survey No.283/2 which has been acquired by the Government. Thereafter they created forged document for Survey No.283/13. Even a perusal of the forged Will would show that the name of the husband of the deceased Elangali Ammal has been mentioned wrongly.
7. In the earlier occasion, this Court, after consideration of the above facts and circumstances, found that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.13507 and 13629 of 2012 were already arrested and custodial interrogation is over and there are civil proceedings pending between parties and granted bail.
8. As far as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 is concerned, this court considered that the husband of the petitioner, who has been arryaed as A.3, was arrested and hence there is no necessity for custodial interrogation for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 and granted an interim anticipatory bail.
9. As far the petitioner in Crl.O.P No.13338 of 2012 is concerned, who has been arrayed as A.9, the Court considered that she is a woman and A.5, a similarly placed accused, was arrested and no cusodial interrgation is ncessary for A.9 and therefore, granted interim anticipatory bail. Now, regular Anticipatory bails are sought for and bails granted are challenged as aforesaid.
10. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel appeared for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13338 of 2012 /A.9.
11. Mr.Thiayagarajan, learned Cousnel appeared for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.12770/2011/A.4 and for the 1st respondent in M.P.No.3 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13507/A.3.
12. Mr.R. Gandhi learned Senior cousnel appeared for the 1st respondent in M.P No.3 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13629 of 2012
13. Heard R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior counsel appeared for the defacto-complainant in all the original petitions.
14. According to the defacto-complainant, the property bearing 1 acre 50 cents in S.No.283 originally belonged to one Munusamy, then it devolved upon one Rajammal and Muniappan and thereafter to one Elangali Ammal.
15. There was an acquisition of 58 cents for forming 100 feet Velachery-Tharamani Link Road by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The property is presently identified as Survey Nos.283/1, 283/2 and 283/3. The acquired property lies in between 283/1 and 283/3. Now the dispute is regarding two portions of 283/1.
16. The defacto-complainant along with three others are claiming title to the entire 283/1 through their ancestory Elankaliammal. In 283/1, a portion of the property around 3022 sq.ft seems to be in possession of the accused and others. They are alleged to have created forged Will, fabricated power of attorneys, sale deeds and lease deeds. Therefore, the present complaint has been given for the offences aforesaid.
17. The learned Senior counsel on both sides elaborately argued on the rights of the parties and placed reliance on volumes of documents. With deep respect to the learned counsel appearing on either side, this court is not inclined to dwell upon those eloborate arguments, as this court is not called upon to decide the title of the parties or their possession and enjoyment.
18. As already stated, this Court has considered the materials and has granted bail for two petitioners/A.3 and A.5; granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.4 and A.9.
19. Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel for the defacto-complainant vehemently opposed granting of absolute anticipatory bail to the petitoners/A.4 and A.9 in Crl.O.P.No.12770 and 13338 of 2012.
20. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the bail granted to the petitioners/A.3 and A.5 in Crl.O.P.Nos.13507 and 13629 of 2012 has to be cancelled as they are interferrig with the possession of the defacto-complainant.
21. On the contrary, Mr.R.Gandhi, N.R.Elango, and Mr.Thiyagarajan learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioners are already granted interim bail and conditions are also complied with without any violation and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if interim anticipatory bail is made absolute and similarly in the case of the petitioners who have been granted bail have also complied with the condition without any violation and no case has been made out for any interference.
22. For cancellation of bail, there must be some concrete evidence to show that the accused are misusing the order or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice. None of the above said factors are established.
23. Similarly, the petitioners who have been granted interim anticipatory bail, have also complied with the conditions and there is no similar allegation of misusing the order for tampering with the evidece or trying to flee from justice.
24. This court has heard Mr.S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor, who submits that substantial investigation is over and there is no requirement for custodial interrogation of any of the petiitoners as they have already been examined by investigating officer.
25. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution or to the investigation if the interim anticipatory bail is made aboslute.
26. Simlarly, there is no case made out for cancellation of bail, Therefore, the petitions filed to cancel the bail are liable to be dimissed.
In the result,
i) Crl.O.P.Nos.12770 and 13338 of 2012:
the interim anticipatory bail granted to petitioners are hereby made absolute on the same sureties executed by them earlier and on condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required.
ii) M.P.No.3 of 2012 (cancellation of bail) in Crl.O.P.No.13507 of 2012 is dismissed.
Iii) M.P.No.3 of 2012(cancellation of bail) in Crl.O.P.No.13629 of 2012 is dismissed.
iv) M.P.Nos.2 of 2012 (relaxation) in Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 since the petitioner has complied with the condition without any violation, the condition is fully relaxed.
v) consequently, MP Nos.1 in Crl.O.P.No.12770 of 2012 and 1 of 2012 in Crl.O.P.No.13338 of 2012 is allowed.
sr